Mr. Speaker, violence against women is unacceptable. Today, November 25, has been declared the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. The great need for such a day must be acknowledged. Throughout the world, women's rights are still being trampled upon.

This is a good opportunity to draw attention to the great efforts expended every day by those concerned with fostering an equitable society, who have set up shelters and transition homes for battered women. Because of these efforts, thousands of women can finally live without fear.

Let us never lose sight of the fact that women everywhere in the world are victims of violence, day in and day out. I can only hope that one day we will be able to celebrate a victory over this deplorable situation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the tragic death of two teachers killed this weekend in a horrific and callous act of violence.

As they sought to protect their property from unlawful invasion in the early hours of Saturday morning, Bonnie and Bob Dagenais were brutally shot and killed by a convicted criminal and his 15 year old accomplice.

Unarmed and defenceless, the couple were innocent victims of a terrible crime which sought to rob them of their property and ended by robbing them of their lives.

Bob Dagenais, a retired school principal, and his wife Bonnie, a former grade three teacher, both retired last spring. In their many years as educators in the Ottawa-Carleton district the couple touched and inspired many individuals and unfailingly won the respect and admiration both of pupils and of colleagues.

The community in which they lived and worked today mourns their loss unable to comprehend the magnitude and the senselessness of their deaths.

I believe my hon. colleagues will join me in offering my sincere condolences to their family and friends following this tragic loss.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy and proud to rise today to pay tribute in the House to the exciting show we were given last night, during the Grey Cup match in Edmonton.

In a dramatic ending in the final quarter, the Montreal Alouettes defeated the Edmonton Eskimos 25 to 16, to win the Canadian football championship. The Grey Cup returns to Montreal for the first time in 25 years.

I would like to congratulate all of the Alouette players for their hard work and determination and we would also like to thank the Eskimos for the thrilling final game that they provided. Kudos to Pat Woodcock in particular, of the Alouettes—born in Kanata, Ontario—for having caught a 99-yard pass, thereby breaking the record for the longest pass in the history of the cup and leading his team to victory.

The Alouettes will be landing at Dorval this afternoon, and a parade in the streets of Montreal has been planned for Wednesday. Let us give them the welcome they truly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, child poverty continues to be a national disgrace in Canada. Numbers released today by Campaign 2000 confirm that 10 years after the House of Commons unanimously passed the NDP resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, Canada still has over a million children living in poverty, and for many the situation is worse. The depth of poverty for two parent families now averages $10,000 below the poverty line.

The rate of child poverty may be decreasing slowly but after the many years of prosperity we still have a situation in Canada where one in six children is more likely to see the inside of a food bank than share in that prosperity.

Canada cannot solve this problem by limiting its own revenue through further tax cuts, nor can it continue to pretend that cutting programs like EI and affordable housing will help to solve the problem of poor children in our communities.

What Canada and Canada's kids need is a real commitment to expand the child tax benefit, bring in a national affordable housing strategy and implement a national strategy of early childhood education and care.

Mr. Speaker, on this International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I would like to highlight the efforts of advocacy and feminist groups whose mission is to fight the effects of violence against women and children.

The threats, abuse, human rights violations, violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination suffered by millions of women around the world is unacceptable, and we must not tolerate it.

As a member of Parliament, and on behalf of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank all those who have contributed on whatever scale to fighting the devastating effects of violence.

I would also like to make my colleagues in the House aware of the importance of doing all we can to fight this phenomenon. Therefore, I would invite the federal government to provide funding for the struggle to eliminate violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and welcome the 22 mayors from Canada's largest cities who are in Ottawa today for two days of discussions.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities' big city mayors caucus are meeting with cabinet ministers and finance officials for prebudget discussions.

These 22 mayors represent all regions of Canada with different priorities and differing issues. What they have in common is important to our urban regions: infrastructure, transit, transportation and housing needs.

We must continue to invest in our urban regions so that they can be sustainable, prosperous and competitive for the 21st century. Let us all work together to ensure their success.

Mr. Speaker, the government has been burying its head in the sand for far too long. It has been very slow to react to almost every trade issue.

There is another dark cloud hanging over the Canada-U.S. trade issues. The decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission to continue its investigations into alleged dumping by the Canadian Wheat Board is the most recent in a long line of Canadian products to come under attack by American producers, who are more interested in playing politics than adhering to the North American Freed Trade Agreement.

The impact of this decision could have immediate consequences for Canada's grain farmers. If interim tariffs are imposed on U.S. imports of Canadian wheat and durum by next March, they could be as high as 34%.

The government was aware that the devastating tariffs would be placed on Canadian lumber and it waited until it was way too late. It sat idly by and watched as P.E.I. potatoes were unfairly banned by the U.S.

The government should pull its head out of the sand and start dealing with these trade issues of Canadian wheat now before it becomes a very serious problem. The government must toss out its wait and see approach to serious trade issues. The government needs to deal with the problem now before its too late.

Mr. Speaker, today is the international day for the elimination of violence against women and the first of the sixteen days of activism against gender violence.

I ask all Canadians and all members of the House to join me during these days in the fight to raise awareness about violence against women.

In the next few days, we will commemorate with sadness the anniversary of the tragedy at École polytechnique de Montréal. There will also be World AIDS Day and International Human Rights Day.

Today, let us start by remembering the three Mirabel sisters from the Dominican Republic, who were political dissenters and were brutally assassinated by dictator Trujillo on this day in 1961. Lest we forget.

Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Perrin Beatty, of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, assuring him, as he did many others, that Kyoto would proceed only under the following conditions: a workable plan; progress internationally on clean energy exports; progress domestically on consultation with the provinces, stakeholders and other Canadians; and no artificial deadline.

My question is simple. Since none of the Prime Minister's conditions for ratification have been met, other than his sad hunt for a legacy, why are we now pursuing Kyoto ratification on an end of the year deadline?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in June of last year, made it clear that 2002 was the year he expected to have a decision on ratification.

More recently, at a meeting in Johannesburg some two months ago, he indicated he would put a resolution before the House so that the opinion of members of the House of Commons and the Senate could be canvassed prior to ratification.

As far as I know these two indications of time which he gave back in June and September are still entirely valid and I do not see this as any undue rush at all.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister only dropped his conditions once he knew he would not have to face the Canadian people again. His actions are irresponsible.

Without a definitive plan there are no guarantees that our industries and businesses will be protected or remain competitive. The government is trying to deal with this is by putting out reports reassuring Canadian businesses that they will not have to meet Kyoto's punitive targets due to the lack of any implementation plan.

I ask the minister, is it true that the reason the government has failed to provide implementing legislation is because it is not serious about actually implementing the accord and meeting the targets?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing the minister quoted every time the government floats one of those lines.

Provinces and industry are asked to have blind faith that the accord will not bankrupt them. Yet the latest version of the government's PowerPoint presentation is devoid of any cost estimates at all or any guarantees to the provinces.

Once again, given these rumours that the government keeps floating, should Canadians assume from the government's failure to produce cost estimates that it is not serious about actually paying for and implementing the accord?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could not be more wrong. We fully intend to ratify the accord and meet the targets that are in the plan. We have a plan which was tabled in the House last week.

I believe that if the hon. member would read it, he would see what every other country that has looked at our work says; and that is, that we have put more detailed information before our people than any other country in the world has done.

Mr. Speaker, the whole world found unacceptable the remark made by the Prime Minister's confidante, especially in a context where Canada is launching into a round of very important negotiations with the United States. I said the whole world, but that excludes Iraq, which held up the remark made by Ms. Ducros as evidence that Canada is opposing its closest ally.

If Ms. Ducros was able to recognize her error, why did the Prime Minister not accept her resignation?

Mr. Speaker, those words were uttered before this humiliating incident and it is Saddam Hussein's official media outlet which is now using the words of the spokesperson of the Prime Minister and of the government to insult this country.

By allowing her words to stand, by not accepting her resignation and by not apologizing for these offensive remarks, the government and the Prime Minister have indicated that this constitutes tolerable conduct on the part of their spokesperson.

Will the government not now indicate that her words are not the view of the Government of Canada and that she ought to be held accountable for this insult against the head of our major ally?

Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that those are not the views of the government. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated:

There will always be some who try to find negative parts of this relationship. I have been in professional, political and military life at a senior level for the last 20 years, going on 25 years, and I can attest to the fact that we have no better friend.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister pledged in this House that Canada would ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of the year. Oddly, the government's motion, on which the House will vote, does not make any mention of the end of 2002 as the cut-off date to ratify Kyoto.

Could the minister tell us why the government chose to present a motion that frees it from it own commitment?

Mr. Speaker, when a motion such as the one referred to by the hon. member is drafted, it can be short or it can be longer. We opted for a short one. Having said that, I can assure the hon. member that ratification will take place by the end of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I was a negotiator for a long time. When people would tell me “This is implicit, we will do it, do not worry”, but refused to put it in writing, I knew that something was wrong and that the other side was about to renege on its commitments, that it was trying to find a way out. Adding the mention “in 2002” would not make the motion much longer. It is not about having a short or a long motion.

Again, if it is not for the purpose of backing away from its promises, why does the government refuse to specify “in 2002”?

Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the Minister of the Environment says, his implementation plan presented last week rejects 1990 as the reference year in favour of 2010, which comes down to giving polluters permission to continue to pollute for the next eight years.

Is the minister willing to admit that dropping 1990 as the reference year, despite his claims to the contrary, is tantamount to not acknowledging the past efforts of certain industrial sectors?

Mr. Speaker, I answered this last week. I indicated clearly that, if an industry or a company has taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2010, this will be taken into consideration. The position of such a company would be protected against any economic difficulties caused by its having taken steps before the deadline.

Mr. Speaker, we know that most government assistance has gone to the petroleum sector. The choice of 2010 as the reference year confirms that the minister is prepared to give polluters another eight years in which to continue to pollute.

Is the minister prepared to do the same for the development of renewable energies and give them an equal share of the subsidy pie?